Today I was pointed to the article "How would you fix the Linux desktop?" through slashdot. (Yes, another one of those articles.) I am quite comfortable using a Linux desktop and have been for nearly a decade, so it's not very mysterious to me. My family also uses Linux as a desktop with no real complaints. However, this seems to remain a controversy. It reminds me a little about my daughter talking about her school lunch.
My daughter just turned ten. The other day she was talking about all of the terrible things they are doing at the school cafeteria. They've removed some of the dishes she liked and put, in her opinion, poor alternatives in their place. I should say that my daughter is not a pizza and hot dogs sort of diner. She likes sushi and different kinds of vegetables when they are well prepared. Her description of what was going on did sound a little poor, but it's an institution's approach to being told to provide more "healthy choices" while also adhering to a giant list of restrictions, primarily budgetary. I would probably eat it, but not look forward to it. I suggested that my daughter could always take her lunch and we could keep them interesting. I don't think she even heard me.
We have a lot of choices that we would rather not act on. "I hate my job," says someone... but doesn't really want to leave and find another one. "I hate the environment in my city," says another... but won't move someplace where they say they'd be happier. We complain, but we don't act, because we are not so unsatisfied that we think it's worth the effort to make a change. This truth means that most complaints fall on deaf ears because providers know that we likely won't do anything. If Walmart knew that "I'm never shopping here again" didn't have a silent "unless I find that I'm desparate for something and everyplace else is closed, or I happen to be somewhere and Walmart is the only place I recognize, or I know I need something cheap" then they would probably be a lot more attentive.
So, in desktop land, though people might be disapointed with their Windows or MacOS experience, they likely won't really try to make a move. Once the disappointment is voiced it has been served and one can simply get on with things.
Some say that the problem is not enough applications and that there are barriers to writing applications that work across Linux desktops. I don't know how true that is. I regularly play with different desktops on my Linux installation (you can change it every time you log in if desired). All of the programs I run work fine across the desktops... though the experience changes slightly as the desktop features rearrange. It seems that it is largely a matter of the application letting go of the things that the desktop does rather than trying to emulate them. Maybe I'm missing something.
There are really only about a dozen things that most people do with a computer. Applications exist for those. Developers of popular software could provide a LInux version as easily as they provide a version for Windows and Mac OS. Arguably, if they started to use some of the existing open development techniques that are used for Linux applications they could more easily write things that run on all of the operating systems with single code base. There are several examples of this in existing open-source software.
People don't use the Linux desktop because they just don't care for the most part. They use whatever they're given. If IT turned around and gave them a Linux desktop and managent said it was the new policy people would use it. Oh, they would complain, just like people do about the store they go back to again and again, but they wouldn't quit their job over it. As long as someone has to make an effort to be different, it will only be those who already do that sort of thing in their lives who take on Linux, and discover the benefits it gives them. Everyone who prefers to "go with the flow" can discover what flows downhill.